A Partisan Family Feud Over Parenting

The Colorado high school tragedy has injected an immediacy into the debate on what, if anything, the government can do to help parents rear their children, sharpening a conflict between the political parties that is likely to reverberate through next year’s presidential race.

On one side are President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, who will host a conference on youth violence at the White House Monday. They argue that government can provide “tools” that help parents exercise their responsibilities. On the other side are many Republicans who argue the solution to problems confronting parents must be found primarily in moral, and even religious, revival.

“The larger question, particularly after Littleton, is, do people perceive that the federal government has a role in this or are they saying this is a responsibility of parents, communities, schools and local government,” says GOP pollster Linda DiVall.

A Focus on Married Couples

The target for this argument is the nation’s nearly 54 million married couples--25 million of whom have children under 18 at home. These voters, particularly those with young children, have become a critical battleground between the parties: While married couples strongly favored Republicans in presidential elections from 1968 to 1988, Clinton’s inroads among them contributed heavily to his victories in 1992 and ’96.

In 2000, the vast armies of Soccer Moms and Dads, who comprise about a third of the electorate, appear up for grabs. “They are very evenly divided,” says DiVall. “They are not favoring one party over the other.”

As a political issue, Littleton’s lasting effect may not be tied to the specific fear of school violence, says David Blankenhorn, president of the centrist Institute for American Values. Rather, the chilling spectacle of brutal teenage killers is more likely to crystallize parental anxiety about the cultural and social influences that can corrupt children, he predicts.

For most parents, “there is a feeling as though the environmental waters out there are increasingly dangerous,” Blankenhorn says.

In responding to that anxiety, the two parties haven’t moved down entirely separate tracks. Clinton and Gore, while touting programs to help parents, have regularly criticized Hollywood and emphasized themes of moral renewal and parental responsibility. The vice president, speaking at a memorial for the murdered Littleton students, used some of the most overtly religious language he has ever employed. “In our suffering, all of us stand naked before God,” Gore said.

And some of the Republican presidential contenders have endorsed government responses to the Colorado tragedy. Former Vice President Dan Quayle and conservative activist Gary Bauer urged more “character education” in the schools. Texas Gov. George W. Bush called for more government support for programs promoting sexual abstinence and other “right choices” for teens.

But in Littleton’s wake, most of the GOP contenders have focused on the culture as the culprit. They have excoriated the entertainment industry. And in New Hampshire last weekend, Quayle and Bauer argued that the tragedy showed the need for a spiritual renewal in America. Each urged steps to increase the prominence of religion in public life, such as voluntary school prayer.

Gov. Bush Pushes Parental Priorities

Bush has argued the country needs a change in personal priorities more than a change in policies. “The fundamental issue,” Bush says, “is, are you and your wife paying attention to children on a day-by-day, moment-by-moment, basis.”

The GOP candidate who has talked the most about family issues is former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander, who unsuccessfully sought the nomination in 1996. This time, he has centered his campaign on an agenda he says “would have the effect of putting the government and the culture on the side of parents raising children.”

At the heart of his program is tripling the income tax exemption for children to $8,000. That, he argues, would give families more financial flexibility to decide whether they want both parents to work outside the home--and also make a clear political statement.

“If our first priority for a tax cut were to triple the child tax deduction instead of cutting [tax rates] across the board, that would send a strong signal that we were the party that valued parenting,” he said in an interview.

Also on Alexander’s list is legislation to allow workers to trade overtime for time off instead of extra pay.

Alexander differs from most of his Republican rivals in stressing a government role aimed at parents. Yet he maintains the traditional GOP resistance to direct Washington action. He opposes, for instance, the Family Medical Leave Act Clinton signed in 1993 that requires most companies to provide workers unpaid leave to care for a new child or sick relative.

That law symbolizes Clinton’s contention that “government can help parents take responsibility.” While Republicans have traditionally argued that the government undermines families, either through high taxes or by promoting liberal social attitudes, Clinton and Gore have sought to redefine the debate by promoting governmental tools they say can help single and married parents in raising children.

This agenda has grown steadily, spinning off a succession of policy initiatives.

One cluster has focused on what Clinton and Gore call helping parents “balance work and home.” These have included proposals to expand the family leave law, tax breaks and other subsidies to allow access to day-care and all-day schools. Most recently, Clinton proposed legislation he said would prevent employers from discriminating against parents on promotions.

Down a second track, Gore has taken a leading role in efforts aimed at helping parents better control their children’s exposure to popular culture. This cluster has included the administration’s support for a television rating system, the V-chip (which allows parents to block out objectionable programming on their televisions) and initiatives to help parents monitor their children’s Internet use.

Along a third track, the administration has pursued measures to increase safety for children, such as gun control and more money for school safety.

Finally, much of Clinton’s tax agenda--from the tax credit for young children to the subsidies for college tuition that were both enacted in 1997--has been targeted toward the expense of raising children.

Gore aides say the “tools for parents” idea will be even more central to his campaign agenda. “We are going to bring this in to virtually every single thing we talk about,” said one senior Gore advisor.

One early example: Gore has framed his proposals to combat suburban sprawl less as an environmental issue than as a means of helping parents stuck in traffic get home in time “to read a bedtime story.”

The open question is whether either this agenda or the competing Republican focus on tax cuts and promoting religion is weighty enough to have a significant effect on the family strains it is meant to combat. Blankenhorn, for one, is dubious that federal tax cuts can be large enough to allow large numbers of parents to leave the work force--or that new rating systems will truly convince many families they have more control over the cultural influences bombarding their children.

“We want big changes in the macro-cultural environment, and you don’t get that just by putting more money in people’s pockets or giving them a rating system,” he says.